California, expanding nationally
Corrections and Profile Verification
A publication that claims to be evidence-based earns that description at exactly one point: what happens when it is wrong. This page is The Dental Board's corrections and verification policy — what qualifies as a correction, how to submit one, what evidence carries a request, and what you can expect from us once it is received.
What qualifies as a correction
The corrections process exists for factual claims: statements this site publishes that are either accurate or not against checkable evidence. It is deliberately not a channel for everything a reader might dislike, because a corrections process that adjudicates opinions stops being able to guarantee anything about facts. The table sorts the request types we receive and where each one actually goes.
| Request type | Example | How it is handled |
|---|---|---|
| Factual data error | A figure is transcribed or rendered differently from its cited source | Corrections process: verified against the source, corrected with a visible note if confirmed |
| Outdated observation | An observed digital signal has changed since the recorded observation date | Re-observation: the measure is refreshed and the new observation date displayed |
| Misattribution | Information about one practice displayed under another, or a misclassified peer group | Corrections process, prioritized — identity errors are the most serious class we handle |
| Source error | The underlying government dataset itself contains an error | We verify we rendered the source faithfully, link the issuing agency's own correction channel, and annotate if the agency issues a revision |
| Methodology disagreement | A practice believes a measure shouldn't be weighted as it is | Logged as methodology input for the next dated version — not a correction, and we say so in the response |
| Removal request | A practice asks to be excluded from public-data-based coverage | Handled under the published editorial policy; public data about businesses is generally retained, while specific concerns (safety, error, identity) are reviewed individually |
How to submit a correction request
- Identify the exact claimLink the page and quote or screenshot the specific figure, sentence, or observation you are disputing. 'My profile is wrong' cannot be verified; 'this page states X' can be.
- State what you believe is accurateThe proposed correction, stated as specifically as the claim it replaces. A request that identifies an error without an alternative can still be investigated, but a complete request resolves faster.
- Attach evidence we can verifyPrimary documentation carries the request: a license record, a filing, the cited dataset itself, or — for observable digital measures — the current public surface we can re-observe directly. Assertions without evidence are logged but cannot by themselves change published information.
- Identify yourself and your relationshipCorrections are open to anyone, not only the practice concerned — but we verify that requesters speaking for a practice actually represent it before applying practice-verified status. State who you are and how you relate to the information.
As a matter of policy we acknowledge correction requests promptly and resolve them as fast as verification allows — simple rendering errors move quickly; requests requiring source verification or re-observation take longer. What we commit to unconditionally: every request receives a reasoned response, including the requests we decline, which are declined with the reason stated.
What happens when a correction is accepted
An accepted correction changes the published information and leaves a mark. The page is updated, its updated date is bumped, and a correction note records what changed — because a publication that silently repairs its errors is asking readers to assume it never makes any, which is the opposite of trustworthy. For material errors, the note stays with the page; for trivial rendering fixes (a typo that never changed meaning), the update may proceed without a formal note, and the boundary between those is drawn conservatively.
Our commitments on every accepted correction
- The correction is applied everywhere the erroneous fact appears on the network, not only on the page reported
- Material corrections carry a visible note describing what changed
- Derived values are recomputed when a corrected input feeds a score or benchmark
- The requester is told what was changed, or why nothing was
- Correction history is retained — we do not launder the record by deleting the trail
Proactive verification for practices
Corrections are reactive; verification is the standing offer. A practice can review the public information displayed about it and confirm or evidence-correct it before any error causes harm. Verified information is marked as practice-confirmed with the verification date, which does two things: it tells readers which facts the practice itself has stood behind, and it gives the practice a dated baseline so future drift is easy to spot and fix. Verification never touches scores or benchmarks — it confirms facts, and the firewall between commercial or cooperative relationships and measurement applies here as everywhere: verifying your profile earns accuracy, not favor.
A verified practice and an unverified one with identical observable inputs receive identical measures. Verification exists so the facts are right — it is not a loyalty program, and it confers no scoring advantage of any kind.
Frequently asked questions
How long does a correction request take to resolve?
It depends on what verification requires: a rendering error checked against its cited source resolves quickly, while requests needing re-observation of a digital surface or correspondence about an underlying dataset take longer. The unconditional commitments are prompt acknowledgment, a reasoned response to every request — including declined ones — and priority handling for misattribution, the most serious error class.
Will the original error still be visible after a correction?
The erroneous value itself is replaced, but material corrections carry a visible note describing what changed, and correction history is retained. This is deliberate: silent repair asks readers to believe the publication was never wrong, and a corrections trail is part of the evidence that the rest of the site can be trusted.
Can I have my practice removed from the site entirely?
Requests are reviewed individually, but the general policy is that coverage built on public data about operating businesses is retained — that is what makes the site's market information complete rather than curated by consent. Specific concerns are different from general preference: identity errors, safety issues, or demonstrably wrong information are acted on through corrections regardless of any removal question.
What if my correction request is rejected?
You receive the reason — typically that the disputed claim matched its cited source or current observation, or that the evidence provided could not be verified. A rejection on evidence is not a dead end: stronger primary documentation reopens the question. A rejection because the request was actually a methodology disagreement is routed to methodology input, where it genuinely influences future versions — several boundary rules in the current standard exist because someone argued.
Who is allowed to submit a correction?
Anyone — patients, practices, researchers, competitors. Evidence is evaluated on what it is, not who sent it. The only identity requirement applies to practice verification: someone confirming information on a practice's behalf must demonstrably represent it before the data is marked practice-verified, because that mark tells readers the practice itself stands behind the facts.
Related on The Dental Board
How we handle this information
We keep material limitations visible, separate advertising from editorial judgment, and avoid inventing live scores or recommendations when the underlying evidence is not available.
Related in this network
Related properties may share common ownership. A cross-property link is not an endorsement — see our ownership disclosures.